I think 2020 might need to be Warren for the Dems. She's well liked by the progressives, has an anti-Wall Street record, has proven she can get shit done, and she is a strong woman with little baggage but the "Native American" thing, which is pretty weak.

So far as I can tell, all is pretty calm here in the DC area. Election evening, everything was empty as people were glued to the TV. Since then...not much. Protests scheduled, though. I do not expect them to matter much.

Protests don't matter. Ultimately, Clinton didn't pull enough votes in the important areas. And even then, Clinton didn't lead significantly with the popular vote, meaning that roughly 50% of the country really did want Trump to win.

As Obama said: don't boo... vote. Trump can't hear your boos (or in this case: Trump won't hear or even care about your protests). The chance to stop him was the election.

Thesh wrote:I think 2020 might need to be Warren for the Dems. She's well liked by the progressives, has an anti-Wall Street record, has proven she can get shit done, and she is a strong woman with little baggage but the "Native American" thing, which is pretty weak.

"I have to congratulate the USA for sticking it to the elite by voting for a man with his own Boeing 757."

Odd sentiment. Both candidates were wealthy. One was loved by the establishment, one was despised by the establishment. Seems voting for the one despised by the establishment should fall squarely under the heading of "sticking it to the elite".

Thesh wrote:I think 2020 might need to be Warren for the Dems. She's well liked by the progressives, has an anti-Wall Street record, has proven she can get shit done, and she is a strong woman with little baggage but the "Native American" thing, which is pretty weak.

What Native American thing?

Did you not see Trump calling her "Pocahontas"? She claimed to be 1/16th Cherokee or something like that on an application for something decades ago.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

PeteP wrote:How about just an liberal celebrity. I think Brad Pitt was liberal, or Johnny Depp. Though I guess someone running some company would allow at least the experienced with business narrative.

Calvin Klein?

Thesh wrote:Alec Baldwin ran the microwave division at GE, and then went on to run NBC.

"I have to congratulate the USA for sticking it to the elite by voting for a man with his own Boeing 757."

Odd sentiment. Both candidates were wealthy. One was loved by the establishment, one was despised by the establishment. Seems voting for the one despised by the establishment should fall squarely under the heading of "sticking it to the elite".

There's a difference between elite and establishment. You can be one without being the other.

Clinton is both, Trump is only elite. People stuck it to the establishment.

PeteP wrote:How about just an liberal celebrity. I think Brad Pitt was liberal, or Johnny Depp. Though I guess someone running some company would allow at least the experienced with business narrative.

Kanye West has business credentials and already said he's running for whatever party lets him

lorb wrote:A criticism of Trump is that he is less outspoken against such behaviour than Hillary, and even perceived as encouraging it.

Maybe, but a criticism of the Democratic National Committee is that it is perceived as encouraging (and even paying for) such behavior, and by extension, a criticism of Hillary is that she is not outspoken against that.

If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

SlyReaper wrote:Odd sentiment. Both candidates were wealthy. One was loved by the establishment, one was despised by the establishment. Seems voting for the one despised by the establishment should fall squarely under the heading of "sticking it to the elite".

You really think the establishment fears Trump? Have you read his tax proposals? Have you read his plans to slash regulation on Wall Street? The establishment will be popping champagne corks over his election.

The real way for the 99% to stick it to the elite would be to find and get behind a decent third-party candidate, not to flip-flop between two parties who are both establishment to their very core...

Yablo wrote:Maybe, but a criticism of the Democratic National Committee is that it is perceived as encouraging (and even paying for) such behavior [(encouraging violence)]...

No. That's a criticism of those doing the perceiving. An actual criticism of the DNC is that it actually encouraged such behavior. And I don't see where that happened... certainly not from the head. With Trump, it came from his own mouth. It wasn't some vague "perception".

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

SlyReaper wrote:Odd sentiment. Both candidates were wealthy. One was loved by the establishment, one was despised by the establishment. Seems voting for the one despised by the establishment should fall squarely under the heading of "sticking it to the elite".

You really think the establishment fears Trump? Have you read his tax proposals? Have you read his plans to slash regulation on Wall Street? The establishment will be popping champagne corks over his election.

The real way for the 99% to stick it to the elite would be to find and get behind a decent third-party candidate, not to flip-flop between two parties who are both establishment to their very core...

I hope you're very proud of yourself that you're not going to be a victim of this.

I don't condone the violence and hate highlighted in that article, and please don't imply that by supporting Trump, I somehow do. Also, please don't imply that the Trump supporters committing that violence are an accurate reflection of the rest of us. Do me that courtesy, and I won't imply that the Hillary supporters who are guilty of that same sort of violence are reflective of her base as a whole.

Sure, as long as you own that the bigots are out there in force specifically because Drumpf encouraged them. You bought it, mate, own it. Your candidate made it so I had to console a ten year old that she won't be deported just because her biological father is African. Your candidate emboldened bigots such that a friend of mine is burying her transgendered kid this weekend. Good job. Hope you're proud of him.

"Does this smell like chloroform to you?""Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Yablo wrote:Maybe, but a criticism of the Democratic National Committee is that it is perceived as encouraging (and even paying for) such behavior, and by extension, a criticism of Hillary is that she is not outspoken against that.

There's a cost to using words like "rapist" to describe Mexican immigrants, or discussing in detail your plan to 'deal' with the wives of terrorists (His words: "I'll let you use your imagination"). At the very least, can you understand why an American Muslim might be scared of the man who's on record for claiming thousands of them were cheering after 9-11? Can you understand why the man you voted for -- the man who, rather than talking about working with Muslims, claims they need to turn the terrorists in, and talks about executing any of them even related to a terrorist -- terrifies the holy fuck out of a Muslim?

And if so, can you understand how his election can be seen as a validation -- even a vindication -- of some of the most disgusting anti-Islamic hysteria our country has to offer?

Attacks on Muslim people by Trump supporters aren't on your head. But Trump's transparently clear Islamophobia -- his misogyny, his racism, his xenophobia -- is. You voted for a man who talked about murdering the wives and children of terrorists like it was just something you had to do. You voted for a man who talked about "grabbing" women "by the pussy". You voted for a man who described Mexican immigrants as rapists; a man very likely guilty of sexual assault; a man who clearly does not have a Christian bone in his body (if you think Trump has Christian values, I weep for the end of Christian values).

I'm not asking you to throw yourself on your sword, here; I'm going to just presume you're a good husband, father, and Christian. But the man you voted for is the sort of man no good husband, father, or Christian should ever look up to. You can describe how his policies coincide with your own concerns until you're blue in the face -- but can you tell me this is a man who represents you? A man you admire? If so, why shouldn't I be afraid of you? You support a man who no reasonably informed, reasonably moral person would leave alone in the same room with a pretty teenage girl. That's more than a little scary.

The reason Trump's election is so surreal to me is because, to me, it's a collapse of even the pretense of American values. If this man can be president, then values don't seem to much matter anymore -- American, Christian, or otherwise.

And yeah, you might not be responsible for the violence, but you and everyone else who voted for Trump are definitely responsible for the continuing disintegration of those values. And that disintegration has a cost.

But you're probably not one of the people who's going to have to pay it.

People are all about Democracy, until it jumps up and smacks them in the mouth. If the Democrats who stayed home this election had gotten out and voted, then Trump, would in all likelihood, not be President. Before you blame everybody else you had better look closer to home and ask yourself, given the clear nature of the choices, why was turnout down? Blame the other guy if it suits you, but you've got two years to put the party in a position to stop Trump, assuming he can be stopped. And blaming Trump voters is whining, not fixing the problem.

@morriswalters: I'm not talking about how to solve the problem, I'm talking about whether or not someone should accept responsibility for voting for Trump (and what that responsibility entails). Unless you think nobody should accept responsibility for who they vote for, I'm not seeing your point.

morriswalters wrote:People are all about Democracy, until it jumps up and smacks them in the mouth. If the Democrats who stayed home this election had gotten out and voted, then Trump, would in all likelihood, not be President. Before you blame everybody else you had better look closer to home and ask yourself, given the clear nature of the choices, why was turnout down? Blame the other guy if it suits you, but you've got two years to put the party in a position to stop Trump, assuming he can be stopped. And blaming Trump voters is whining, not fixing the problem.

There's like 12 million uneducated white people, all located in swing states, who didn't vote either. You sure you want to play the 100% turnout game?

Remember all those false charges that Democrats took minorities for granted, and never did anything for them? We need to actually do that. Just keep everything that's for minorities as either side benefits, or quietly slipped into regulations or rulings or laws. You get nothing else. Everything else is now framed in terms of white power. Welfare now is termed trade reparations. Social security? Plaster the walls with old white people. Global warming will labeled only as natural disaster relief. Environmentalism is now protecting exfactory workers from poisons by industry. "Demographic changes are making the country more diverse. After a decade, a minority coalition is more plausible as whites shrink as a plurality in the country" Start breeding politicians, and select only those who sound the most authentic. Doesn't matter if he's wrong, just that's hes authentic. If whites want symbolism, we'll cram symbolism down their throats until they shit stars and stripes.

In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town -- aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.

I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive.

And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities.

------

sardia wrote:After a few decades, we can bring back the minority stuff to the forefront as they out breed the weakening whites.

Something like,"Demographic changes are making the country more diverse. After a decade, a minority coalition is more plausible as whites shrink as a plurality in the country"? Why so concerned about phrasing? You were talking about the benefits of deathsquads not too long ago.

Either way, there's a lot of weakness in the desire for Trump and the 'good old days'. We can bring back a small slice of it with a fat infrastructure bill, but will the GOP play along? Trump may not realize how much of his strength comes from the GOP majority in Congress and SCOTUS. Anyone have any guess how long before we find out? First 100 days? Next couple weeks as power seekers rush to whisper in Trump's ear?

CorruptUser wrote:I'd like the Dems to clean house of the anti-science crowd. The anti-vaxxers, the anti-gmos, the anti-nukes. Let the Republicans have the monopoly on the stupid.

They'd have to alienate their critical theory-affirming pomo humanities major college undergrad base. Which ain't happening.

Since I've written this sentence a few times with less than stellar results (which I'll attribute to being a humanities guy who predominantly works cross discipline with science writers), I'm going to crib a few words from Stephen Jay Gould. By all means speak out against poor scholarship, but please bear in mind that your high opinion of those in the humanities are, well, fucking offensive.

I think he's referring to the postmodernism in general, which is the worst thing to have ever slithered out of the Philosophy department.

It's a shame, really. I do have a great deal of respect for certain Humanities degrees, like History and Anthropology, viewing them as intellectual equals to Physics. Not to mention that Philosophy originally laid the groundwork for Computer Science, and that Ethics is an especially important field as we begin to create Artificial Intelligence (should a self driving car kill you to save 10 pedestrians?).

What gmalivuk said. Plus, I've not seen evidence to suggest either of you know what post-modernism (aesthetically, ideologically, etc.) even is, so I find your judgement here ridiculous.

By the way, the comic you posted farther down is nonsense. It presents three obviously ridiculous comments and a forth that might make sense is some context (Randall seems to misunderstand Derrida's term, but basically everyone else does as well). There are legitimate criticisms of any given writer or movement within literary and cultural criticism (just look at how bad some of the writing is), but we can point to bad science (and bad science writing) that is similarly insulated by institutional or cultural frameworks. Why denigrate a whole discipline? My guess is vanity.

Hey, guess what, some of us grew up there. And some of us still live there. And we get by just fine without shitting on minorities, even (gasp) in one of the whitest states in the union.

I grew up in NH, and I live in northern Maine. I see it ALL. THE. FUCKING. TIME. I've worked the same fucking job for 13 years, haven't had a raise in 4, and my family barely gets by. I GET IT. And yes, Clinton wasn't going to be very good either - but you've made your bed, fucking own it like grown-ups.

sardia wrote:Something like,"Demographic changes are making the country more diverse. After a decade, a minority coalition is more plausible as whites shrink as a plurality in the country"? Why so concerned about phrasing? You were talking about the benefits of deathsquads not too long ago.

Either way, there's a lot of weakness in the desire for Trump and the 'good old days'. We can bring back a small slice of it with a fat infrastructure bill, but will the GOP play along? Trump may not realize how much of his strength comes from the GOP majority in Congress and SCOTUS. Anyone have any guess how long before we find out? First 100 days? Next couple weeks as power seekers rush to whisper in Trump's ear?

You made it sound like minority's plans were to breed like rats/hamsters/rabbits in order to take over, which is exactly what the Neo-Nazis are scaremongering over. And it's not true, at least not in the way you think; the fertility rate for white women is 1.948 versus 1.972 for black women, or "both below replacement rates, and not enough of a difference between them to be noticeable in our lifetimes" (note; including Hispanics). What is happening is that you are seeing more "multiracial" families, so you are getting more "minorities" that way. Which is something that has always happened; a quarter of the country is Irish, another quarter German, another quarter English, etc. We'll just get rid of the "Hispanic" category the way we did with "Italian" and boom, white people are the majority again.

I'm really curious about some of the demographics of the vote. I mean, it's possible that Trump performed better with minorities than Romney, but, you know, that seems weird. Is there any way to distinguish, using the data that's collected, between increased Trump support among the demographic vs. low turnout for Clinton?

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm talking about whether or not someone should accept responsibility for voting for Trump (and what that responsibility entails). Unless you think nobody should accept responsibility for who they vote for, I'm not seeing your point.

It isn't on you to tell anyone they should accept the responsibility for their actions, or what that responsibility entails. They voted, and chose, and they accepted the responsibility when they did that. That's what elections are all about. Or so I always believed.

sardia wrote:There's like 12 million uneducated white people, all located in swing states, who didn't vote either. You sure you want to play the 100% turnout game?

The short answer is yes. Of course it sounds like you might like to disenfranchise those 12 million uneducated people. And why don't you quit using code words and just call them stupid.

This, seriously? I'm glad I'm an old white person. I also did you a favor by not replicating my genetic material. That means I hastened the day when minorities take over from us. And they can have it.

sardia wrote:Remember all those false charges that Democrats took minorities for granted, and never did anything for them? We need to actually do that. Just keep everything that's for minorities as either side benefits, or quietly slipped into regulations or rulings or laws. You get nothing else. Everything else is now framed in terms of white power. Welfare now is termed trade reparations. Social security? Plaster the walls with old white people. Global warming will labeled only as natural disaster relief. Environmentalism is now protecting exfactory workers from poisons by industry. After a few decades, we can bring back the minority stuff to the forefront as they out breed the weakening whites. Start breeding politicians, and select only those who sound the most authentic. Doesn't matter if he's wrong, just that's hes authentic. If whites want symbolism, we'll cram symbolism down their throats until they shit stars and stripes.

CorruptUser wrote:You made it sound like minority's plans were to breed like rats/hamsters/rabbits in order to take over, which is exactly what the Neo-Nazis are scaremongering over. And it's not true, at least not in the way you think; the fertility rate for white women is 1.948 versus 1.972 for black women, or "both below replacement rates, and not enough of a difference between them to be noticeable in our lifetimes" (note; including Hispanics). What is happening is that you are seeing more "multiracial" families, so you are getting more "minorities" that way. Which is something that has always happened; a quarter of the country is Irish, another quarter German, another quarter English, etc. We'll just get rid of the "Hispanic" category the way we did with "Italian" and boom, white people are the majority again.

As for my death squads thing, I'll explain in private.

You're missing immigration, which have higher birth rates and brings an additional person into the country that wasn't otherwise there. Before that happens to Hispanics, they''ll still be useful as a minority punching bag/Democratic strength.* As for literal strength, relying on whites only to keep the economy humming is a statistically foolish errand. Additional immigration(and trade) will grow the economy more. The US needs fresh bodies to keep the population young, and economy growing.

*assuming the Republicans don't get to them first.

Morris, I'm referring to additional turnout, no coded language here. If you magically get higher turnout overall, there's a lot of uneducated whites, all traits that predicate pro Trump voting. You'd need additional turnout that didn't affect Republican voting. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mis ... o-register In addition, get out the vote programs favor whites, over minorities. Democrats have to try twice as hard to get a similar voting rate. That's on top of the inefficient allocation of Democratic strength.

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm talking about whether or not someone should accept responsibility for voting for Trump (and what that responsibility entails). Unless you think nobody should accept responsibility for who they vote for, I'm not seeing your point.

It isn't on you to tell anyone they should accept the responsibility for their actions, or what that responsibility entails. They voted, and chose, and they accepted the responsibility when they did that. That's what elections are all about. Or so I always believed.

At the moment, I'm more interested in what Yablo believes. Not that what you believe isn't important; it's just not what I'm currently trying to find out.

You're assuming that millions of Hispanics will keep coming to the US for work. That might not continue, depending on what Trump does.

And really, why isn't Mexican immigration something the Republicans are supporting? Sure, they may not be pasty enough, but they are devoutly Catholic with strong "traditional/family values" and good food and more importantly, they work their ass off for dirt cheap making big businesses huge profits. You'd think it'd be the Democrats opposing immigration...

eran_rathan wrote:Hey, guess what, some of us grew up there. And some of us still live there. And we get by just fine without shitting on minorities, even (gasp) in one of the whitest states in the union.

sardia wrote:Morris, I'm referring to additional turnout, no coded language here. If you magically get higher turnout overall, there's a lot of uneducated whites, all traits that predicate pro Trump voting. You'd need additional turnout that didn't affect Republican voting. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mis ... -register/ In addition, get out the vote programs favor whites, over minorities. Democrats have to try twice as hard to get a similar voting rate. That's on top of the inefficient allocation of Democratic strength.

I read the 538 article. And when I posted to Hippo it was in my mind. Whining at Trump voters isn't likely to fix the problem pointed out in that article. And uneducated is a code word in my mind. Because it doesn't mean anything. Exactly at what point do you become educated? Would that be a BS or a Masters or maybe a PHD? Does it omit out Humanity degrees? If you want to say that educational attainment is inversely correlated with support for Trump then say that.

SlyReaper wrote:Odd sentiment. Both candidates were wealthy. One was loved by the establishment, one was despised by the establishment. Seems voting for the one despised by the establishment should fall squarely under the heading of "sticking it to the elite".

You really think the establishment fears Trump? Have you read his tax proposals? Have you read his plans to slash regulation on Wall Street? The establishment will be popping champagne corks over his election.

The real way for the 99% to stick it to the elite would be to find and get behind a decent third-party candidate, not to flip-flop between two parties who are both establishment to their very core...

Given how the stock markets skyrocketed...

The current theory I'm seeing is that the Stock Market is safer than Trump's potentially inflation-setting policies. You don't want to hold onto cash or bonds right now.

Dunno how much faith to put into that, but a rising stock market is not necessarily indicative of approval.

Those assholes existed before the election, and those assholes will continue to exist after the election. Whether Trump or Clinton won. Breath deeply, and say it with me: assholes exist in the world, and they will do bad things to good people.

One thing I can say for sure about Mr. Trump, is that when it became clear that he was a poor influence on the crowds with respect to the crowds (ie: punching people), Trump dialed back the language on his own accord. The rise of racist post-election bullying is definitely Donald Trump's problem now, and lets see how he's going to attempt to unify us on this issue.

--------------

Another note: the people who protect you from casual racism (be it local police forces, anti-bullying forces and whatnot), they still exist today, and they existed last month, and they will continue to exist under a Trump presidency. They are your friends, your neighbors, and yourself. The solution to bullying is never "blame the President", and it never has been. Bullying is a serious problem, and it takes an active community to stamp it out.

Bullying has always been a problem, at schools, at universities, and elsewhere. Even overt racism. Just 4 years ago, I had to deal with a anti-asian protester walking down my office, shaking his poster at me every single day I pulled into the office. At the height of the Obama presidency. Racism never disappeared, and it is going to be a thing I dealt with for the rest of my life. But "blame the next President" is not going to be my action.

The Dollar weakened against the Euro on Tuesday night... only to instantly recover on Wednesday and grow even stronger. Same goes for the Yen. If stock markets were rising due to the declining dollar, the Euro is collapsing harder than the dollar.

<Trumpvision>Which makes sense, seeing as the rest of the world's economy is made up of parasites who steal from Americans</Trumpvision>